video cards

[Adrian Griffis]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 03 April 2008, feba thatl wrote:
>  > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>  > > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>  > >  > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>  > > > >  Avoid nVidia unless you agree with all of these statements:
>  > >  > >  1. Don't care that this combination is illegal.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Never heard that one before.
>  > >
>  > >  I'll cite Greg on this one...
>  > >
>  > >  "I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers
>  > > over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all
>  > > agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module,
>  > > today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun
>  > > things like derivative works and linking and other stuff."
>  > >
>  > >  * http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
>  >
>  > That looks like it's talking about working them into the kernel and
>  > distributing it, not just using it in a system.
>
>  *You* might be "just using it in a system", and the GPL makes it clear that
>  mere use is always legal. However, *nVidia* is doing exactly what you admit
>  is illegal: working it into the kernel and distributing the code for that.

nVidia is not distributing any GPL'd code.  The are simply distributing their
own proprietary driver.  They aren't even working the driver into my kernel;
The are simply telling me how to work their driver into my kernel.  Exactly how
are they violating the GPL?

Adrian